As always, there’s a grain of truth here, a grain there. Even the Guardian had a few good points but naturally, ignored the others in its political bias:
1. Ukip chose the wrong candidate. Selecting a former copper who served in the South Yorkshire force for 30 years gave Labour easy ammunition.
2. Labour’s candidate was easily the most experienced. The party wisely bypassed anyone who had served recently on any South Yorkshire council, particularly Rotherham.
Just a former leader of arguably the most corrupt council in the UK, next to Tower Hamlets.
3. Ukip ran a cynical, scaremongering campaign which turned many people off.
It certainly came across that way, no matter how far it was true about the 1400. What I don’t like about Nige’s tactics is how he gets gung-ho on something and won’t listen. Amateurish. Then again, this is one of the charms of UKIP – they’re ordinary people, not cynical pollies.
4. Most people don’t believe in police and crime commissioners as a concept – a feeling that has only strengthened since Shaun Wright, South Yorkshire’s first, disastrous PCC.
5. Nigel Farage may have boasted of parking his tanks on Labour’s lawn, but the fact is that Labour’s electioneering artillery is still way mightier than Ukip’s.
Yes it is. They’re a cynical party interested only in holding onto power – forget principle. 2p Beaker is the epitome.
What the Guardian naturally ignored was, as one commenter wrote:
I got the impression in Sheffield that there was a level of quiet engagement in the PCC election among a number of groups that bears some investigation and comment.
A) the faith communities all came out and voted having discussed the issues and reaching a shared conclusion
B) third sector charities used social media to get their members to vote
C) the students came out and voted, especially women.
For ‘faith community’, read Muslim activists. There was certainly no Christian faith community in there. Plus, as commenters at OoL said, the first on demographic research:
Except UKIP won’t do that research. They didn’t consider the demographic and so went ahead with a poster campaign instead of a quiet under the radar discussion group.
Again, the damned fools missed an open goal.
I think, that the major point you are missing, and on a turnout of 14% ably demonstrates just what the people of South Yorkshire think of this particular political sinecure, added to that, the universal contempt that previous incumbent and prize twat “I see no problems” Shaun Wright – and we observe the conclusion of the good folk of South Yorks.
No white voters turned out. But it was clearly, a Kashmiri postal vote – was all it was, and it is time to move on.
I’m saying this as someone currently friendly towards UKIP, not hostile but they really must do better. They’ll possibly manage Rochester and Strood but they could easily miss easy goals if they refuse to listen to people and adopt this self-congratulatory manner you see on the UKIP homepage.
Where is Nigel calling for investigation of the postal vote scamming of Labour – they do it every time with the Muslim communities. bloc voting.
It’s looking to me that UKIP, who make a great deal of listening to people when the LibLabCon don’t, are actually not listening to constructive advice from would-be sympathisers.
OK, so here’s a case in point:
A lady wrote at Kent online:
Our NHS is quite rightly a priority and needs improvements. UKIP tell us that services will be free at the point of delivery. However, just because it is free to UK users doesn’t mean that it has not been 100% privatised. I want to feel confident that ANY profits and ALL savings are ploughed straight back into front line services rather than go to private companies. After all, the NHS belongs to us, the UK taxpayer.
I’m further concerned if UKIP intend to offer a fast-track service. This would mean, for example, that people waiting their turn in A&E would be waiting even longer when those who can pay a fee are simply allowed to queue-jump. Please could someone who knows about UKIP policies clarify the position please.Thank you.
She is pro-UKIP. Now it may be that UKIP have this tabbed, know about it and are ready to reply but it’s also possible they’ve never even read it. If not, why not? There was no reply to her from UKIP officers. This is the Kent area – where they’re fighting a by-election.
I’m a blogger, I went to Google and found this as the top story:
Fine that UKIP are increasing the margin in R&S. Hope Mark gets back.
Now scroll down to comments – a mix of people who live in Kent. That’s where I took that lady’s comment from. The people, like that lady, like me, like many of you, are sick to death of the platitudes.
I wrote to UKIP and whilst thanked for doing so, was told to read UKIP literature by way of reply. I don’t want that crap. I want specific answers suitable for a political blogger with a finger on the pulse. And you are political readers with a finger on the pulse.
That is all any of us have ever wanted – to be listened to and not be fed BS or the party line.